What party selection system is best?

[Olauron Mor-Galad]

I like #2. #3 with the camp is acceptable but I don't want to be able to switch companions anywhere in the locations.

[Audron]

I did not mean to say switch them anywhere, just when moving from one big location to another big location, region, town, and so on.

[novander]

The Dragon Age 2 style is my favourite. I loved how the companions all had their own houses, lives and identities, even if Merrill's room in the poor quarter is five times the size of anything I've ever lived in.

[Tychoxi]

I chose 2 & 3, but I would accept it if the companions made their "own" decision based on my current standing with them. Haven't been in the party for long? Then they'll always say they're going back to [insert place here] or they'll wind up in some city/inn randomly. If I have a good standing with them, they'll accept when I tell them to "wait here" or go to some specific place/"home". If they are pissed with me they'll of course not accept my orders and they'll use the opportunity to ditch me. They'll probably go burn down my house too, or disappear with some loot I had stored.

 

Charisma could help sway their decisions, though.

[Olauron Mor-Galad]

I did not mean to say switch them anywhere, just when moving from one big location to another big location, region, town, and so on.

Ok then. There is such feature in DAO (well, not absolutely anywhere but not just when moving from location to location) and I'm not very fond of it, thus the need to clarify.

[Saber-Scorpion]

Personally I have come to dislike the "party home" idea used by BioWare since the release of KotOR. It's probably the best option for games like KotOR in which you can only take a small number of companions with you at once, but it feels unnecessary in a game like this, with parties of up to 6.

 

I prefer the Infinity Engine style, with the feeling of adventure one gets in games like Icewind Dale, as their party ventures further and further into dangerous uncharted territory, with no way back, forced to camp in the wilderness and possibly be ambushed by monsters.

 

The only way to "select" new party members should be to travel all the way back to town and pick them up again from their place of residence, IMO.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Saber-Scorpion

[Sylvius the Mad]

But if they do just hang around waiting for me, either travelling near me (DAO), or staying in a central location (BG2), or standing in the wilderness where I left them (BG), they shouldn't earn any XP. This is always something that has bothered me. If the companions level up on their own, how are they doing that? How are they earning risk-free experience? It must be risk-free, because they never die when I'm not watching them. And they also never collect loot, so they're obviously not adventuring off on their own. And if there is some means to earn risk-free XP that doesn't break the setting, why isn't the PC doing it?

 

So if you're not there to baybysit everyone, then they should die?

Could. Not should. They could die when they're with me. Why can't they die when I'm not there?

Reffering to update#7, there will be no xp for killing things, only for completing goals/quests.

So there is always a plausability for people to level.

Risk-free? Again, if there's some way to gain XP without facing any risk at all, why isn't the PC doing it?

And besides, balancing companion levels will be better for your options so that people who enjoy switching around their party composition can do so without annoyances.

That versatility should come with a cost.

[Terror K]

I personally find it rather disheartening that #2 is winning. This is something I'd prefer to see gone, tbh, and closer to the Dragon Age model. Playing BG2 again earlier this year, I found having to backtrack and even remember where you left somebody more an annoyance than anything else. Especially when you trek all the way to a location, discover that the person who has the spell you want isn't with you, then have to go all the way back, then remember where you left or sent them, then physically find them, usually running across more enemies along the way, etc.

[Bill Gates' Son]

As a JRPG player primarily, I rather go with option 3 or 4. I'm the type of person who tends to forget where I leave my companions, especially if I take a break from the game. If there is someone I want to use, I would just like the convince of switching them in and out of the party, rather than try to search the game for them.

[ohmygodsquad]

I personally find it rather disheartening that #2 is winning. This is something I'd prefer to see gone, tbh, and closer to the Dragon Age model. Playing BG2 again earlier this year, I found having to backtrack and even remember where you left somebody more an annoyance than anything else. Especially when you trek all the way to a location, discover that the person who has the spell you want isn't with you, then have to go all the way back, then remember where you left or sent them, then physically find them, usually running across more enemies along the way, etc.

 

Did you never tell them to go back to the tavern?

[TrashMan]

It must be risk-free, because they never die when I'm not watching them.

 

Could. Not should. They could die when they're with me. Why can't they die when I'm not there?

 

Risk-free? Again, if there's some way to gain XP without facing any risk at all, why isn't the PC doing it?

 

1) No, it's not risk free. From the Point of View of a companion, do you ever die? No, becaue you reaload. so oyu ALWAYS suceed.

 

So in other words, it's not that it's not risk-free for them, it's just that they canonicly manage to pull it off without dying.

If it helps, think of it this way - they reloaded.

[Jarmo]

"So you want me in your party... as a reserve member? So I'll just wait in this cottage in case you someday need me?"

Yeah, that'll work.

 

Nah, DA (and other Bioware games) sort of assume everybody is along all the time, despite the game mechanics only allowing a few companions.

And that also explains why they gain XP, they're with you.. in spirit.

 

Mostly, I'd think you either have someone with you or you don't.

This does conflict a bit with arbitrary limits. "What do you mean the party is full?"

 

Voted for the second option though, because this could work sometimes.

 

Assume you have this house of yours, or have arranged for lodgings from an in (with full upkeep),

then why the heck shouldn't some mage scholar just grab the opportunity to take a few weeks of reading time.

Maybe learn something while doing the scholarly work as well?

Or maybe the warrior could spend the week training?

 

But some paladin on a quest to eradicate all evil? A bit of a holiday? Ummm... NO!

Edited September 24, 2012 by Jarmo

[Grayman]

Number two is the most comfortable option. I don't find hard choices fit with an arbitrary party limit, we are full or i need a mage more than you aren't great lines.

[dan107]

Wow, there's really 18 people that likes how Dragon Age 2 did it.

That's.. scary, actually.

 

What's wrong with companions having their own houses that they rest at when they're not with you?

 

But if they do just hang around waiting for me, either travelling near me (DAO), or staying in a central location (BG2), or standing in the wilderness where I left them (BG), they shouldn't earn any XP. This is always something that has bothered me. If the companions level up on their own, how are they doing that? How are they earning risk-free experience? It must be risk-free, because they never die when I'm not watching them. And they also never collect loot, so they're obviously not adventuring off on their own. And if there is some means to earn risk-free XP that doesn't break the setting, why isn't the PC doing it?

 

So if you're not there to baybysit everyone, then they should die?

Could. Not should. They could die when they're with me. Why can't they die when I'm not there?

 

Maybe they have a reload button too? Come on, XP and RPG combat in general is utterly unrealistic to begin with. Why use it to limit a player's options unnecessarily in terms of being able to switch companions?

[KhaineGB]

I went for #2.

 

However, I'd like party members to go to a set "place." If you have a house, then you should be able to tell them to meet you there. If not, then they should go somewhere specific so you can find them easier. For example, they might just say "Ok, well I'll be in the tavern if you need me", so they automatically head to the tavern of the city you are in.

 

Maybe have a little tooltip on the map to help the player remember this too. Don't just leave them where you kicked them out!

[teknoman2]

the thing i want is for all companions to have an actual use in the game. usually having a fighter, a thief, a mage, and a priest is enough for any party, however if you gather 5 warriors, 4 thieves, 6 priests and 3 wizards for a total of 18 companions, 15 of them will be useless to the player cause Salazar the wizard can do the same thing that Merlin the wizard or Edwin the wizard can do, so it doesn't matter who you take with you, thus rendering useless the other 2.

that thing happened on KOTOR 1 and 2 (and also in almost all party based rpgs i ve played). you had many companions, could take 2 of them with you at any given time and after a point in time the non jedi companions were practically useless.

a thing that i would like is to be able to make a second party with the companions that are not actively in the main party, and send them on errands like doing that easy gather 20 boar tusks sidequest that i dont want to waste time with myself or go explore that area to see if there is anything interesting or find me that plant for my potions, restock my home's arsenal with arrows so when i get back i can replenish my supplies without going shopping myself etc.

also, the ability to swap party members anytime is good, but should be also done in a sensible manner. so im for option 2, but without me having to backtrack.

i have with me a wizard companion that is useful in combat with his fireballs, but i need help with something he cant do (like making a golem clone of someone or reading someone's mind) and my other wizard companion can.

the other companion is in my home 4 hours away.

i send the wizard from my party back to tell the other wizard to come meet me at this or that spot.

the wizard then will leave the party, make a 4 hour trip and after 4 more hours the other wizard will arrive at the location i specified, and wait for me to meet him there.

i can also send a messenger and make the swap after he arrives, keeping my current wizard in the party for the 6 instead of 8 hours (a messenger makes the distance in half the time, but the wizard will still have to travel 4 hours) that will take for him to come.

in the meantime, me and the rest of the party can go about our business or rest at the inn while we wait for him to come over.

later in the game, when one or both wizards can use teleport, they can instantly transfer companions to and from the house, making party member swapping fast and easy

[Slice0fLife]

We should have to backtrack.

 

Moreover, if we tell someone to leave, there should be no guarantee we can find them again. Perhaps they'll strike off on their own somewhere. Perhaps they'll die.

 

But if they do just hang around waiting for me, either travelling near me (DAO), or staying in a central location (BG2), or standing in the wilderness where I left them (BG), they shouldn't earn any XP. This is always something that has bothered me. If the companions level up on their own, how are they doing that? How are they earning risk-free experience? It must be risk-free, because they never die when I'm not watching them. And they also never collect loot, so they're obviously not adventuring off on their own. And if there is some means to earn risk-free XP that doesn't break the setting, why isn't the PC doing it?

 

Very good point.

If you tell them to leave, it would be obvious that they would not spend a month in an inn. It would be great to see them go some other stuff while waiting, from working at temple or running a potion shop to going adveturing by themselves or in a different party (and you would have to try hard to get them back!).

 

About chance of death .... I am no so sure, it would be better if there is chance of losing their equipment or smthing (you ask them where they lost and go get it back). I think that if your char just dies suddenly because you told him to beat it, could have a negative effect on the story.

A good example would be in BG2, I cleared all charter stories one by one, but normally stick with 4 characters entire game with out dismissing them even once and the other 2 who constantly changed depending on quest.

 

So a system where you had to make an effort to get your party member back would be great.

 

 

ps One way to explain your group members sticking around you and around your house or whatever would be if they formed some kind of organization or an order for goal (probably connected to the main plot)

Edited September 24, 2012 by Slice0fLife

[Gecimen]

Well, it's just that I want to be relaxed about trying out a companion without risking losing one that I love.

[Theobeau]

A hybrid 2 and 4 woudn't be bad; NPCs could have their own "base location" where they hung out or be sent to another set location.

 

DA:O's all party switch out all the time was fairly immersion breaking even if it allowed for greater tactical flexibility.

[Jarmo]

A party member assumedly adventuring on their own and earning XP, yeah, why not.

A party member adventuring on their own and dying, no. That's just silly inconvenience pretending to be realistic.

 

It can be assumed the adventurer has a fate that lets him survive on his own, or maybe when you meet him on the shadowy bar on level 5,

there should be a chance he didn't make the first 5 levels and is actually dead and not on the bar to be met? How inconvenient.

 

On the other hand, it could be kind of fun to get a messenger delivering a note to the tune of:

"Your former collaegue Maester Ferdinard Hugebottoms has perished during an adventure, would you like to finance his resurrection?"

 

Or the ex could find himself in trouble and would be asking for help, or he could have a lead on something.

But that'd be a lot of work, for some char you didn't want to play with in the first place.

[timobkg]

But if they do just hang around waiting for me, either travelling near me (DAO), or staying in a central location (BG2), or standing in the wilderness where I left them (BG), they shouldn't earn any XP.

From a gameplay perspective, having to level up under-leveled characters is not fun. If they're under leveled, then you can't take them into the current content, which means you have to go grind old, worthless, un-challenging content. Grinding isn't fun, and I don't want to spend my limited playtime grinding or have to give up ever using the other characters again.

 

From a realism perspective (in our magical fantasy game), do you expect that they have no life without you? That they just sit around twiddling their thumbs while you're gone? That they can't spend their time practicing, training, studying, etc? Sure, they don't die, but you can gain experience from non-threatening activities, and as you're still alive to come back to them it seems just as likely that they'd be still alive. As to why the PC doesn't do the same, well, you do sometimes (quest reward XP, non-combat quests), and fighting a combat dummy doesn't lead to the most exciting gameplay.

[Dorateen]

Just give us a GUI like the Storm of Zehir Party Editor menu.

 

That's how I assemble a party.

 

Harumph!

[Lucas]

"youmustgatheryourpartybeforeventuringforth,youmustgatheryourpartybeforeventuringforth,youmustgatheryourpartybeforeventuringforth,youmustgat.", err, ok, I'll stop

[Sylvius the Mad]

But if they do just hang around waiting for me, either travelling near me (DAO), or staying in a central location (BG2), or standing in the wilderness where I left them (BG), they shouldn't earn any XP.

From a gameplay perspective, having to level up under-leveled characters is not fun. If they're under leveled, then you can't take them into the current content, which means you have to go grind old, worthless, un-challenging content. Grinding isn't fun, and I don't want to spend my limited playtime grinding or have to give up ever using the other characters again.

That problem only exists if there's a linear (or close to it) XP curve. If we use an exponential curve (like 1st & 2nd edition AD&D), then it only ever takes one level for everyone to catch up.

From a realism perspective (in our magical fantasy game), do you expect that they have no life without you? That they just sit around twiddling their thumbs while you're gone? That they can't spend their time practicing, training, studying, etc? Sure, they don't die, but you can gain experience from non-threatening activities, and as you're still alive to come back to them it seems just as likely that they'd be still alive. As to why the PC doesn't do the same, well, you do sometimes (quest reward XP, non-combat quests), and fighting a combat dummy doesn't lead to the most exciting gameplay.

What's exciting is up to me. If there's a risk-free way to gain XP that's available to my companions, then it should be available to the PC.